Schumer says Dems will filibuster Gorsuch nomination

[georgephillip]

It isn't against the law

The better question is why isn't Sheldon Whitehouse Introducing a bill to make dark money Illegal? As Gorsuch said:

"Senator, the fact of the matter is it is what it is," Gorsuch said, somewhat agitated. "And it's this body that makes the laws and if you wish to have more disclosure, pass a law and a judge will enforce it, Senator"
Neil Gorsuch

The reason why Whitehouse is not introducing a bill. as such is because he know that he wants "dark money" for his candidates or nominees.

The ball is in his court!

Whitehouse is likely at least as compromised as Gorsuch by corporate money, but that doesn't justify putting the latter on SCOTUS, does it?

http://progressive.org/dispatches/zephyr-teachout-on-gorsuch/

"One of the most remarkable moments during Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's confirmation hearings came when Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, questioned Gorsuch about the role of money in politics.

"Noting that 'dark money' groups had spent around $7 million to defeat Merrick Garland, President Obama’s ill-fated nominee, and have now spent $10 million to support Gorsuch, Whitehouse asked what ideological bent had endeared him to this group of secret donors. After all, Gorsuch insisted that as a justice he would remain independent from outside pressure.

“'I’m trying to figure out what they see in you that makes that $17 million delta worth their spending,' Whitehouse said. 'Do you have any answer to that?'

“'You’d have to ask them,' Gorsuch replied, tersely.

“'I can’t, because I don’t know who they are,' Whitehouse shot back. 'It’s just a front group."”

Do we really need another corporate shill in federal government?

 

[EatTheRich]

I'm not sure that's a problem if the alternative is our current corporate paradigm? If "government" functions democratically, the arbiter of the press will be subject to the will of the people which is a long way from where we seem to be now.

Even to be plausible we'd need a government of workers and farmers first.

 

[georgephillip]

"Seems like"? Terribly thin for an argument.

Gorsuch's opinion in the Hobby Lobby case shows his belief in a corporation's "right" to religious freedom.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/gorsuch-case-review-shows-hes-no-crusader-abortion/

"On the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Gorsuch ruled against the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. In 2013, he joined the majority of the circuit in ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby and the owners of the Christian-owned arts and crafts chain, which objected on religious grounds to the Affordable Care Act’s birth control coverage requirement.

"Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion in that case in which he outlined what he saw as a moral dilemma facing the family that owns Hobby Lobby and a related company if they were forced to pay for certain contraceptives.

"The law requires companies to support payments for 'drugs or devices that can have the effect of destroying a fertilized human egg,' Gorsuch wrote. They believe that 'violates their faith, representing a degree of complicity their religion disallows.'”

 

[georgephillip]

Even to be plausible we'd need a government of workers and farmers first.

A government of concerned citizens, as opposed to corporate politicians?

 

[Drumcollie]

Whitehouse is likely at least as compromised as Gorsuch by corporate money, but that doesn't justify putting the latter on SCOTUS, does it?

http://progressive.org/dispatches/zephyr-teachout-on-gorsuch/


Do we really need another corporate shill in federal government?

So we need another socialist like Hitler telling us how to run our lives.

 

[georgephillip]

So we need another socialist like Hitler telling us how to run our lives.

https://www.thoughtco.com/was-adolf-hitler-a-socialist-1221367

"The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

"The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism."

 

[Colorforms]

Gorsuch's opinion in the Hobby Lobby case shows his belief in a corporation's "right" to religious freedom.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/gorsuch-case-review-shows-hes-no-crusader-abortion/

"On the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Gorsuch ruled against the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. In 2013, he joined the majority of the circuit in ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby and the owners of the Christian-owned arts and crafts chain, which objected on religious grounds to the Affordable Care Act’s birth control coverage requirement.

"Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion in that case in which he outlined what he saw as a moral dilemma facing the family that owns Hobby Lobby and a related company if they were forced to pay for certain contraceptives.

"The law requires companies to support payments for 'drugs or devices that can have the effect of destroying a fertilized human egg,' Gorsuch wrote. They believe that 'violates their faith, representing a degree of complicity their religion disallows.'”

Techincally, since Hobby Lobby isn't publically traded and is family owned, it is not a corporation. It is a company owned solely by a single family. Gorsuch's ruling was for the family that owned that company. One that I whole-heartedly support.

It the owner of a company can't steer the direction of that company, then that owner loses their religious freedom.

 

[georgephillip]

Techincally, since Hobby Lobby isn't publically traded and is family owned, it is not a corporation. It is a company owned solely by a single family. Gorsuch's ruling was for the family that owned that company. One that I whole-heartedly support.

It the owner of a company can't steer the direction of that company, then that owner loses their religious freedom.

Hobbylobby.com?

http://www.hobbylobby.com/?gclid=CICP1Pno9NICFVBrfgodD1gLEA

"Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a private for-profit, closely held corporation,[2] and an American chain of retail arts and crafts stores based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, formerly called Hobby Lobby Creative Centers. The stores are managed by direct corporate hires.[3]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby

I suspect there are good arguments on both sides of this question, and Gorsuch certainly made use of words like "family" and "owners" when he made his ruling.

 

[Colorforms]

I suspect there are good arguments on both sides of this question, and Gorsuch certainly made use of words like "family" and "owners" when he made his ruling.

I don't see a good argument on the other side. Their argument is like most liberal arguments. "Hobby Lobby needs to do what we want them too or we will get all pissy". Other than that, there really is no reason to abridge religious rights.

 

[georgephillip]

I don't see a good argument on the other side. Their argument is like most liberal arguments. "Hobby Lobby needs to do what we want them too or we will get all pissy". Other than that, there really is no reason to abridge religious rights.

There are three options for constructing a business

The owners of Hobby Lobby chose to incorporate which means they have limited as opposed to full legal liability. It also means their corporation has no rights to freedom of speech or religion. If they want to discriminate, dissolve the corporation and function as a partnership.

 

[Colorforms]

There are three options for constructing a business

The owners of Hobby Lobby chose to incorporate which means they have limited as opposed to full legal liability. It also means their corporation has no rights to freedom of speech or religion. If they want to discriminate, dissolve the corporation and function as a partnership.

Based on what law does Hobby Lobby or its owners lose the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

 

[justoffal]

Hobby Lobby extended the concept of religious freedom to corporations, and whether, on the basis of those rights, corporations can deprive medical services to others. That sounds un-American, to me.

What is unamerican is asking a person to ignore his religious beliefs in behalf of something that is ultimately the choice of Morality and a choice of foresight.

You won't ask any Muslims around you to forego their religious convictions in behalf of the host nation will you?

Hell you even defend the right of a Muslim immigrant to bend over a little boy in a pool shower and rip his anus in half.

No thanks I don't think I'm interested in your values.

Jo

 

[Days]

There are three options for constructing a business

The owners of Hobby Lobby chose to incorporate which means they have limited as opposed to full legal liability. It also means their corporation has no rights to freedom of speech or religion. If they want to discriminate, dissolve the corporation and function as a partnership.

news to me... wtf are you referring to?

 

[justoffal]

So...you "think" access to quality health care has the same significance as accessing a pork sandwich on your lunch break?

I think you're wildly double standardized and choose to have self righteous indignation over a very select number of issues that support your predilections.

When somebody decides to use moral equivalency you naturally object.

To some people abortion is equivalent to Murder. To some religions pork is equivalent to Eternal damnation. If you choose to see only one of them as a Fool's errand that is of course your decision.

Jo

 

[georgephillip]

Hell you even defend the right of a Muslim immigrant to bend over a little boy in a pool shower and rip his anus in half.

Got a link?

 

[georgephillip]

news to me... wtf are you referring to?

Colorform's question in post #71 regarding Hobby Lobby's owners Constitutional rights. Do you believe a corporation is entitled to religious freedom?

 

[georgephillip]

Based on what law does Hobby Lobby or its owners lose the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

If we agree Hobby Lobby is a corporation, I don't believe its owners can claim the individual's Constitutional protection of freedom to practice religion in order to ignore the ACA mandate to provide health care to its employees. It is simple morality.
Actually, I guess it is not that simple:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.

"Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), is a landmark decision[1][2] in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief,[3] but it is limited to closely held corporations.[a]The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution."

 

[georgephillip]

To some people abortion is equivalent to Murder. To some religions pork is equivalent to Eternal damnation. If you choose to see only one of them as a Fool's errand that is of course your decision.

Abortion or contraception?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.

"For such companies, the Court's majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees, by a 5-4 vote."

 

[Colorforms]

If we agree Hobby Lobby is a corporation, I don't believe its owners can claim the individual's Constitutional protection of freedom to practice religion in order to ignore the ACA mandate to provide health care to its employees. It is simple morality.
Actually, I guess it is not that simple:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.

"Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), is a landmark decision[1][2] in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief,[3] but it is limited to closely held corporations.[a]The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution."

So, basically, because you don't want them too.

There is no such law.

 

[Days]

Colorform's question in post #71 regarding Hobby Lobby's owners Constitutional rights. Do you believe a corporation is entitled to religious freedom?

My question was your assertion that a company (and partnership) holds rights that are exclusive to a corporation. At least, that's what I thought you wrote.